• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Your wording had it like qualifying as being the same has nothing to do with agreeing on legislation.

    Not my intent, but happy to clear it up.

    Its still a piece of supporting evidence.

    I stand corrected. It’s just terrible evidence that doesn’t even remotely come close to proving the point.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s so easily shown to be drastically incomplete.

        It’s like we have two polygons. You say “We have good evidence that they are the same shape because they are both polygons!” Well, sure, that’s one tiny piece of the question. But we have to ask how many sides they have, what the angles are between the sides, how long the sides are in length, etc… It’s terrible to claim you have good evidence they are the same because they are both polygons.

        • blazera@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          again, we’re only talking about one piece of legislation to begin with. Come back by when something like votes are cast for congress owning stock.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No one here is claiming they don’t have anything in common. Having another thing in common would not change anything. But I’m definitely interested in seeing what happens. Although I suspect if it passes, it will pass with bipartisan support, with people from both sides also voting against it.